Poll: Leashing/Harnassing children.

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

If someone is such a horrible parent they need the child to be leashed up they probably shouldn't have children at all.

Keep your sweeping generalisations to yourself.

Calm down would you. You're quick to be offended by an opinion.

If a kid if young enough that they would move around at the drop of a hat, it's not that hard to hold them by the hand. Then teach them not to wonder off as they get older. I find a leash is un need in most cases.

If you wanted a calmer response you should have perhaps phrased your initial post a little less harshly. Anyhow, let's move past that.

In principal I get what you're saying - that in potentially risky situations the parent's attention should be fixed on the child. You're right in that regard - but you can't watch a kid all of the time, anyone with kids will tell you this. And this is if we're only talking about one kid. What if we're talking about two? One squalling child can easily direct the attention of a parent away from the other child, and that's when accidents occur.

Surely it's better to have a safety measure in place that ends up not being needed than to not have such a measure in place and for the unthinkable to happen?

I've seen plenty of parents with mutiple kids that can handle it fine.

A safety measure sounds fine in my head, yes. But when I actually see something we use on animals being used on a child, I can't help but find it terrible.

But why do we leash dogs? Because they're easily distracted and have no road sense. Sound like a particular demographic of people?

Y'know what? Yeah, ok, keeping reigns on a kid all the time is a little messed up, but using them just near hazardous areas? I'll happily concede that keeping a kid on the reigns in a park is over the top, but I can't see how - on busy high streets - they're anything but a good idea.

 

[90sgamer]

Yes, leashes are fine. Why not? The arguments I see against them are primarily centered around loathing of lazy or negligent parents. Making your life easier is not lazy unless it comes at the expense of the results. The results of being incredibly watchful of your child or simply tying the child to you with the leash are identical. The effort expended by the parent differs.

 

[Kargathia]

If you need a leash to mind your child, you should not be a parent.

I'll just pick this one to reply to, but it applies to all.

It really depends on the situation. I occasionally got leashed as a kid, but then I had three siblings, and would otherwise run off the moment I could. Not "blithely wander about", but really run off. The experience was demeaning, but in hindsight I'd say it was justified.
Hell, I even unhooked the leash once, and stealthily tied it around a lamp post before running off.

Also pretty sure at least my mother is as good a parent as it gets.

 

[Zeren]

Children are stupid like animals, so why not treat them like one until they are able to take care of themselves? Use leashes until they are 18, then set them free into the world.

 

[Ramzal]

No. Why? Because I believe that natural selection should happen to humans, even children, regardless of age. If you're too lazy to hold your child's hand while walking with them then you probably shouldn't have had a child to begin with. Honestly, all of these safety precautions for children (Even adults) are so ridiculous these days that there are people who've gone their entire lives with so much as falling down once. Or are afraid of "what would happen if..." instead of letting it happen and learning a lesson.

While there isn't much for a child to learn if it's hit by a car, there'd be more than enough for a parent to learn if their kid was hit by a car if they weren't holding onto the child. And if for some reason they didn't learn then...well...again... natural selection will handle that.

 

[bulbasaur765]

I had a wrist leash attached to me when I was 4. I guess it was to let me know that I shouldn't be running around whether or not I held my parent's hand or not when out on errands. Can't remember it being used when I went to kindergarten, however.

 

[AngloDoom]

Speaking as the adultified version of the kid who used to run around without a thought of self-preservation while my mother struggled under the weight of a week's worth of shopping, I can understand the need for a child-harness.

Again, you're coming back from the shops with your hands full of shopping, you can't run after and grab that distracted child if they see a butterfly and chase it into traffic. I think if there's two parents about with at least one unburdened then there's no need for one, but there are some circumstances (as the aforementioned and Phasmal's face-planting prevention above) which just makes it the practical option.

EDIT -

It really depends on the situation. I occasionally got leashed as a kid, but then I had three siblings, and would otherwise run off the moment I could. Not "blithely wander about", but really run off. The experience was demeaning, but in hindsight I'd say it was justified.
Hell, I even unhooked the leash once, and stealthily tied it around a lamp post before running off.

Also pretty sure at least my mother is as good a parent as it gets.

Actually, this. 100% this.

 

[sunsetspawn]

White people be crazy!

No, seriously, this is one of those things that black people make fun of white people about. I say little children have no rights and better leashed than dead.

I was never leashed though, because I was a good boy.

 

[War Penguin]

If someone is such a horrible parent they need the child to be leashed up they probably shouldn't have children at all.

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddddddd someone summed up my thoughts in one perfect sentence. It just demeans both the child and the parent.

Now I know there's a Simpsons clip that sums this up somewhere...

Also... what about holding the bloody kid's hand?! It's far less demeaning to both parties if they'd just do that! xP

 

[Davey Woo]

My parents did have a leash but they rarely used it, my mum had two arms so she was always able to hold me and my sisters' hands when she needed to. I don't have a problem with leashing children, but I would rather just hold my own kids' hand than use a leash.

 

[manaman]

The kid might not like a harness but if it's keeping them from being hit by a car you really can't argue with the results.

But the chance of a child accidentally running off somewhere a car hits them is tiny. It's probably along the same lines as the chance of getting struck by lightning.

And even if, my parents always taught me to never run into the street without looking. That seems preferable an option to treating your child like some sort of animal.

So to answer the OP post, there's never a justified reason for putting your child on a leash.

I was hit by a car when I was three, I ran away across the street. You know I remember that. Funny thing is I don't remember what I was thinking about before around seven or so, but I remember events all the way back to when I believe I was two.

I might be slightly accident prone, but still to say it never happens, or that it is rare is folly.

A leash only makes a kid seem like an animal because that is how you choose to view it. I don't see it that way at all. As I went through a runner phase as a kid (from about five to seven if I could get away I was gone) I wouldn't have been surprised if my mother used a harness on me.

Not that it would have worked, I would have been out of that thing faster than she could figure out how to strap me in, I had a gift that way.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Alternatively you could, I dunno, watch the kid? While I haven't had kids, I've taken care of my neighbours 5 year old at various points in the last 5 years, their 2 year old for the last two and my sister's daughters from a range of ages so I have at least a little experience in this and I'm pretty anti-harness after a while.

Of course parents should pay attention to the kid when they're on the harness. The reason you have the harness is to restrict the child's range of movement, it isn't a license to ignore your child. Kid could be eating something he picked up off the ground, or any number of things.

My mom had to use one for my brother when she broke her leg. Without it, if he'd bolted (which he had the habit of doing) she'd have been unable to get him.

It's really easy to tell someone else how to parent children, and many self-appointed experts on the internet are little more than children themselves (this statement isn't directed at anyone in particular). Plenty of people shouldn't have children, but I'd argue that ones that leash theirs at least care enough about their kids to sacrifice their own public image for their child's safety.

Assuming you read the rest of that post I made, or at least the tl;dr, I think broken leg is one of those ones I would include as 'I-can-see-why-you're-doing-it'. Leashing does not inherently mean it's miles safer, that's a hugely flawed assumption and leads to the whole "I dont need to watch my kid" scenario I was pointing out.

That's going to be hard to argue against since you seem to believe that using a leash automatically means the parents only doing it for the child's safety rather than other reasons like their own convenience (so they don't have to chase the kid, which may be why some people use them past the age of about 3) or to make themselves look more safety conscious (because the appearance of being safety conscious does not neccessarily mean they are, far from sacrificing their public image, some people would consider this a buff to it).

In a real sense, if you're arguing that the people who disagree are children (which is one of the few ways to interpret your last comment) then I would ask what stage do you think children should be UNleashed? 16? 18? You can still run in front of a car at 16.

If you're using it on early developmental stages and you yourself are in some way debilitated, I can see that being a good reason to use one (Broken Leg, for example) but using a leash does not automatically make you a good parent and it doesn't automatically mean the child is any safer. If you're going to supervise them anyway, why bother with the leash? Surely you'll hold their hand/ride them on your shoulders near a road, why would you leash them and give them an extra range of movement with which to run into traffic?

 

[srm79]

I'm willing to bet money that the majority of people saying "NO!" aren't parents. A child's mobility increases at a rapid, but inconsistent rate between the ages of 1 and 2. According to RoSPA figures, almost two thirds of children hit by vehicles under the age of 5 were accompanied by an adult.

The thing is, a small child can move pretty damn fast. A harness is a perfectly acceptable way to ensure that in no circumstances can said child get more than 3 feet away until they learn about road safety. Even the most attentive and responsible parent can have a kid bolt away in the split second their attention was elsewhere. It's no different to using a pushchair, except it allows the child a greater degree of freedom than being strapped into a chair.

Both of my sons had harnesses during their early years. I also seem to recall both found it hilarious to be swung by them. And it's a body fitting harness, it's hardly like putting a choke collar on them or something. But seriously, if you aren't a parent, please don't patronise the rest of us by jumping to conclusions about how awful these things are. By all means, when you have your own children feel free to allow them to walk with you with no safety aids. Because everyone knows that by the age of 3 or 4 children are capable of being streetwise and aware of all the threats and dangers in their enviroment, right?

 

[MetalMagpie]

My mother says she tried to use one of those on me when I was little. Apparently I tried madly to get the thing off then - when I realised I couldn't - sat down on the floor and refused to move. Which put an end to that idea.

Leaving that issue aside, I think they're fine providing they aren't in danger of tripping up strangers. Parents who have their children on long leads in crowded places annoy me because it's like they've got a trip-wire that moves around.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

The leash, like the firm but restrained smack on the arse, is but a single tool in a large shed that a parent should have available if they want.

If you're lucky enough to have a child who seems content with holding hands or sitting in a pram while you turn your attention elsewhere for a split second (and that's all they need) then hurrah for you.

If instead you have been cursed with a child with the speed and reflexes of Usain Bolt and the survival instincts of a lion on meth, then those things are handy as fuck.

 

[Rems]

Neither I, nor anyone else in my family has every been leashed.

Frankly it's demeaning to both the parent and child. You kid is not a dog, he should have the discipline to not run off any chance he gets and you should have the awareness to watch him. To me it's a sign of bad parenting and poor discipline and control.

You should teach your children proper behavior and conduct. It's in the same vein as fussy eaters and children who throw massive tantrums. What's that book called, French Children Don't Throw Food?

 

[lunavixen]

Leahing or harnessing a child is fine in exceptional circumstances, my oldest brother had to have a strap around his wrist to mum because as soon as mum let him go to do something like putting the groceries in the car he'd run. He eventually grew out of it, but mum didn't want him getting run over

 

[Matt King]

i had one when i was a little kid, purely because i would not sit still, i would run the fuck away at a moments notice, because i was hyperactive and very curious and it was very hard for my family to catch me, so after i nearly ran into a car, they bought one for safety

 

[Reaper195]

I was on a 'leash' when I was a child. Only because if I wasn't, I'd keep wandering away. Parents can only watch a child for so long. All it takes is about three seconds for the prent to be looking away, and BAM! The child is on the otherside of the road talking to some random person wearing a green hat.

 

[Denamic]

I was hit by a car when I was three, I ran away across the street. You know I remember that.

You don't, actually.
The older your memory is, the more details are lost. Those missing bits are gradually replaced by your imagination. Memories from your prepubescence are especially poor. Memories of traumatic experiences even more so.
What you remember is that you were hit by a car, perhaps even how you were hit, but everything else is composite. It's likely that your memories are roughly similar to what actually happened, though. It's also why your memory is in third person.